A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Honda
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

the future of motor oil?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old May 8th 05, 07:59 PM
Elle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> wrote
> I didn't mean to quote CR as gospel, only that it was consistent with
> other findings. They have shown abysmal testing ideas on occasion, I
> agree. The "jerk the wheel, slam on the brakes, and let everything go"
> testing procedure on a '78 Horizon/Omni sent the car careening down the
> test track with the wheels bouncing from lock to lock by themselves.
> They downgraded the car as "too sensitive" for our roads. Funny thing
> is, it was later found that most cars have this reaction to such
> bizarre treatment which they concocted for this test. I had one of
> these for several years, and the handling was the only thing Chrysler
> DIDN'T fail on!
>
> The lack of start-ups is the the weakest part of CR's test in '96.
> Never the less, they did help show that for stop 'n go driving in
> average temperatures, synthetic didn't bring much to the table despite
> the added costs.


In 1996, CR ended up having data on only one engine for the synthetic oil.
They changed this engine's synthetic oil every 12k miles. The other engines
tested had ordinary engine oil, changed at intervals of 3k miles or 6k
miles. Data was taken until all engines had 60k miles on them. The comments
on the synth oil:

"The [engine with synthetic oil] fared no worse than the three whose oil had
been changed at 6000-mile intervals."

In its recommendations, CR said, "Even the expensive synthetics... worked no
better than conventional motor oils in our taxi tests, but they're worth
considering for extreme driving conditions--high ambient temperatures and
high engine load or very cold temperatures."

This recommendation does not quite make sense to me. If one has to change
synthetic oil half as often as conventional oil, then one is likely saving
money.

> If synthetic brought any dramatic improvement, the
> oil manufacturers would stop selling synthetic like snake oil, and
> would show us meaningful quantitative data and photos.


I think it's out there. Many a driver here, for example, is using synthetic
and changing comfortably at a much higher interval than with conventional
oil.

It's not proof positive. But I've read enough that I'm convinced synthetic
is a good way to go for a new car and possibly some older cars.


Ads
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
E24 Six Series - Future Classic? Paddington BMW 22 April 6th 05 12:05 AM
FUEL-CELLS = FUTURE cars, Hydrogen = future whatever you say about my stupidity Marco Licetti Technology 0 March 26th 05 06:20 PM
FUEL CELL - HYDROGEN FUTURE Mark Levitski Technology 20 March 24th 05 04:22 PM
Ford's Future Engine Lineup Goes 1960's? Patrick Ford Mustang 9 November 24th 04 04:07 PM
Pogosticks will replace cars in the future Tom-Alex Soorhull General 0 May 15th 04 10:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.